In a situation where a left hander and a right hander a playing in an ambrose and the ball lands on a path wider than 1 club length. The lefty is hitting first so takes releif to the right hand side of the path. This means that the righty must stand on the path to play their shot. Is the righty entitled to a free drop to avoid standing on the path??
Ambrose (or scramble) is a game which has been devised for enjoyable team competition and is not mentioned wthin the Rules. People conducting these competitions usually devise their own set of rules appropriate to the circumstances. However it is still golf and Ambrose games are played within the freamework of the Rules of Golf.
The important point in Ambrose is the position of the chosen ball. This is the reference point for all players, rather than the point from which the first player plays.
I would suggest that each player takes relief as is appropriatate to him/her.
Hi RoG, A player's ball is at rest on a putting green when, in making a practice swing, the player accidentally strikes the ball causing it to move about 60 centimetres farther from the hole. After the player putts the ball from its new position into the hole a fellow-competitor queries the procedure. What is the penalty?
By definition a 'stroke' is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball. In this case the movement was accidental and the player should have taken a one stroke penalty (Rule 18-2a) and replaced his ball. However, because he did not replace the ball prior to playing it, thus playing from a wrong place, Rule 20-7c comes into effect. The penalty for playing from a wrong place is two strokes, and the hole must be completed without the error being corrected. But the penalty statement for Rule 18 provides that in this situation the player is penalised a total of two strokes.
Rog has assumed that this breach is not considered to be serious.
Hi Rog, Some Local Rules classify roads and paths surfaced with artificial materials such as wood chips , gravel, asphalt etc as Immovable Obstructions and permit relief under Rule 24-2b. Other Local Rules classify roads and paths surfaced with these materials as Ground Under Repair and permit relief under Rule 25-1b; and other Local Rules classify all paths and roadways except those covered with an artificial material as integral parts of the course. Is there a "best" approach to this issue?
This is a question which arises often, particularly when playing at an unfamiliar course. It is a matter more of policy than of the Rules, as such.
So long as a 'committee' is aware of: 1. The Definition of an 'obstruction' (including that a 'movable' obstruction can be declared to be 'immovable'); 2. Decision 24/9 which clarifies what constitutes 'artificially surfaced'; 3. The provisions contained in Appendix 1, Part A to the Rules authorising the 'committee' to declare any obstruction to be integral to the course (we would all be aware of the road at the 17th hole of St Andrews Old Course and that there are instances of constructions such as a railway being declared an 'integral part of the course'); and 4. Under Rule 32-2 'The Committee must define accurately' … 'obstructions and integral parts of the course'.
That all being properly handled by the 'committee' it is then up to the player to check the Local Rules to determine the status of any obstruction (including a road or path) which may interfere with his/her play.
Rog is not so bold as to comment on what might be the 'best' approach but notes the responsibility falling to the 'committee' to be 'accurate' and clear in its determinations.
On the 17th green in a recent match play competition I chipped in for a par leaving my opponent with a delicate downhill putt for a half. Then, as she putted and her ball was trickling slowly down the slope towards the hole, a sudden gust of wind blew a gumnut onto her line of putt and she asked me to brush the gumnut off the line. Not wishing to appear insensitive or unsporting I complied with her request. But, it made no difference. The putt was always offline finishing 30 centimetres left of the hole and we both assumed that I had won the hole and the match 2 & 1. However, after hearing of this, the Club Captain expressed the view that the 17th hole was halved and that we had to return to the 18th tee and play the 18th and subsequent holes until a decision was reached. The Women’s Captain thought that we should both be disqualified from the competition. Can you shed further light on this situation?
My view is that the result should stand as your opponent did not make any claim before both of you left the 17th green, so she accepted the result.
As far as the situation at the 17th it deals with Rule 1-2. The interesting thing is that the opponent requests the player to breach a Rule and the player complies with the request. IMO this does not mean that you agreed to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3) but you propably were ignorant of the Rules. So no DQ. However, your opponent would IMO lose the hole as soon as she asked you to move the gumnut (what IS a gumnut??) as this would be a breach of R1-2. You actually complying is irrelevant.
As to your first paragraph. You make a very important point about the handling of 'disputes' in match play. As you say, a dispute which arises on the final hole of a match must be resolved before both players leave the green. In the case where the dispute arises during the match,'resolution', which can mean that one player advises the other that the matter will be taken to the match committee as soon as possible, must occur before either player plays from the next tee. But the players are required to continue with the match 'without delay'.
However, this case does not involve a dispute between the players and so Rule 2-5 does not apply.
While the question is not explicit as to the circumstances, for the sake of discussion Rog has assumed that the issue was drawn to the attention of the 'match committee' for the event (the Club and Women's cpatins) prior to announcement of the result.
As to your second paragraph, you may want to argue that this is a situation to which Rule 1-2 is relevant. You may claim that both players intended to influence the movement of the bal.
However, in Rog's view it is 23-1 which is the relevant Rule in this case. It states in part: When a ball is in motion a loose impediment that might influence the movement of the ball must not be removed.
Ignorance of the Rules is no defence and as both players were culpable and complicit in Rule 23-1 having been contravened, in Rog's view the approptiate outcome would be disqualification of both.
The only other possible decision would, in Rog's view, be that the player who requested that the loose impediment be removed did not breach Rule 23-1 but that the player who removed the loose impediment did. In which case the decision would be 'halved hole' in accordance with Rule 2-2.
I am nervous about giving an opinion as I am new to the rules but I think that the players really agreed to break the rules by their actions and should both be disqualified.
Based upon the description of the incident, Rog thinks that Peachie has got it right. The players should both know the provisons of Rule 1-3, and have tacitly agreed (one by asking and the other by agreeing) to waive Rule 23-1.
If the player had moved the gumnut without having been asked to do so by her opponent, then the hole would be halved in accordance with Rule 2-2.
If the opponent had requested that the gumnut be moved and the player had refused to comply, then the ball would be played as it lies, without penalty.
Rog would appreciate opinions of confirmation or otherwise of these views.
Hi Rog, 1-3 is not applicable if the players did not know they are acting against Rules, see 1-3/5, so there can't be an agreement to waive a Rule. Nor do I think that the player asking the opponent to lift the LI can be punished. The opponent, although acting on request, should be penalized by loss of hole (23-1) although in this case the hole should be halved. Anyway it was too late for a claim and the result of the match should stand.
Thanks Anonymous, I am sure this will help Myff with her query.
I agree that it is difficult to reconcile players agreeing to breach the Rules (tacitly or otherwise) if they do not know what they are. It is also difficult to reconcile 1-3/5 with the 'ignorance principle’ as enunciated in Decisions like 3-4/1, 13-4/3 and 33-1/6. However, let’s accept the authority of Decision 1-3/5 in this instance.
I also agree that it is difficult to conceive how a player who does not, herself, breach a Rule but (successfully) incites another to do so can/should be handled within the context of the Rule Book. Can you help us with that?
I'm not so sure we can be adamant about the outcome of this match. As indicated above, in the absence of complete details on the situation it is difficult to know how and when the issue came to the notice of 'the committee' (if the Captains were, in fact, the 'committee'). In addition, the prospect of the ‘committee’ acting of its own volition, as opposed to responding to a ‘claim’, must, I think, also be considered.
Anyway, be that as it may, thanks for your assistance in the interests of better understanding.
Hi again, All the other Decisions You mentioned have to do with a player physically acting against the Rules, just like our player here when lifting the LI. The player who putted, did physically nothing against the Rules, just in ignorance told the other player to act. In 1-3/5 the players also act against a Rule of which they did not know. In stroke play there would be consequencies afterwards, but in match play as no claim had been made and the players were ignorant of the breach, no consequencies afterwards.
In this case, if it was known that the player knew it was a breach of the Rules to pick up the LI and nevertheless told the other player to lift it, it would be a different outcome. See Dec 9/1.
• A player (Rules knowledge and motivation unknown) who incites an opponent to breach Rule 23-1. • An opponent (Rules knowledge unknown) who breaches Rule 23-1. • Rule 6-1 and sundry Decisions re: player responsibility to know the Rules. • Decision 1-3/5. • No apparent ‘dispute’ between the players. • A (possible) ‘committee’ which becomes involved in circumstances which are unclear and possibly takes action at its own discretion. • An understanding that it is not necessary to ‘physically’ breach a Rule in order be penalised, viz, ‘asking for advice’ (and perhaps inciting an opponent or fellow-competitor to provide it) is sufficient to draw a penalty.
I suggest that we leave Myff to work all this out.
As you correctly state, Note 1 to Rule 2-5 provides that a player may overlook a breach of the Rules by his opponent but it does go on to say; 'provided there is no agreement between the sides (players) to waive a Rule'.
A couple of questions which arise from this situation are: Did the players tacitly agree to waive Rule 23-1 and, if so, does tacit agreement constitute a breach of Rule 1-3?
You could also argue that by her comment Myff betrayed an understanding that there was something not quite right in what she was being asked to do but did not want to ‘appear insensitive or unsporting’, and so complied with the request.
If pushed for a decision, Rog would say that since the actions of both players seem to have been quite innocent and as Myff’s opponent was not impaired in her attempt at halving the hole and as there was no dispute between the players, then the result, as agreed between them, should stand.
I am interested in the rules in respect to gambling and amateur status.
Say that player A and B are playing golf and gambling on the outcome. If the gambling aspect actually takes on more importance than the game do you consider Player A and B should be classified as professionals?
Would say the doubling of the ante for the outcome of 1 particular shot when the doubling was dubious indicate that this action constitutes an act that requires the players to reliquinsh their amateur status regardless of the value of the ante?
This is an interesting question which I have been asked many times.
You will find on pages 180-181 of the Rule Book a statement on Gambling Policy.
In short, this means that the type of 'wager' which goes on every day of every week everywhere in the world between players, for entertainment and enjoyment, is perfectly OK.
It is when things get more serious and/or involve persons other than the players themselves that, as described in the Policy, 'gambling' becomes problematic and thereby unacceptable.
Hi Rog
ReplyDeleteGolf is hard enough when you r learning, let alone ridiculous changes to the rules by the CD's I just want to hit the fall and have some fun
And so you should Jane. The Rules of Golf only apply to competition golf and you can play your golf by whatever rules you like! I do.
DeleteIn a situation where a left hander and a right hander a playing in an ambrose and the ball lands on a path wider than 1 club length. The lefty is hitting first so takes releif to the right hand side of the path. This means that the righty must stand on the path to play their shot. Is the righty entitled to a free drop to avoid standing on the path??
ReplyDeleteHi Anon. Thanks for your question.
DeleteAmbrose (or scramble) is a game which has been devised for enjoyable team competition and is not mentioned wthin the Rules. People conducting these competitions usually devise their own set of rules appropriate to the circumstances. However it is still golf and Ambrose games are played within the freamework of the Rules of Golf.
The important point in Ambrose is the position of the chosen ball. This is the reference point for all players, rather than the point from which the first player plays.
I would suggest that each player takes relief as is appropriatate to him/her.
Hi RoG,
ReplyDeleteA player's ball is at rest on a putting green when, in making a practice swing, the player accidentally strikes the ball causing it to move about 60 centimetres farther from the hole. After the player putts the ball from its new position into the hole a fellow-competitor queries the procedure. What is the penalty?
Hi Tony
DeleteRog's view on this is:
By definition a 'stroke' is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball. In this case the movement was accidental and the player should have taken a one stroke penalty (Rule 18-2a) and replaced his ball. However, because he did not replace the ball prior to playing it, thus playing from a wrong place, Rule 20-7c comes into effect. The penalty for playing from a wrong place is two strokes, and the hole must be completed without the error being corrected. But the penalty statement for Rule 18 provides that in this situation the player is penalised a total of two strokes.
Rog has assumed that this breach is not considered to be serious.
Have a look at Decision 18-2a/21.5
Hi Rog,
ReplyDeleteSome Local Rules classify roads and paths surfaced with artificial materials such as wood chips , gravel, asphalt etc as Immovable Obstructions and permit relief under Rule 24-2b. Other Local Rules classify roads and paths surfaced with these materials as Ground Under Repair and permit relief under Rule 25-1b; and other Local Rules classify all paths and roadways except those covered with an artificial material as integral parts of the course. Is there a "best" approach to this issue?
Hi RoGamaniac
DeleteThis is a question which arises often, particularly when playing at an unfamiliar course. It is a matter more of policy than of the Rules, as such.
So long as a 'committee' is aware of:
1. The Definition of an 'obstruction' (including that a 'movable' obstruction can be declared to be 'immovable');
2. Decision 24/9 which clarifies what constitutes 'artificially surfaced';
3. The provisions contained in Appendix 1, Part A to the Rules authorising the 'committee' to declare any obstruction to be integral to the course (we would all be aware of the road at the 17th hole of St Andrews Old Course and that there are instances of constructions such as a railway being declared an 'integral part of the course'); and
4. Under Rule 32-2 'The Committee must define accurately' … 'obstructions and integral parts of the course'.
That all being properly handled by the 'committee' it is then up to the player to check the Local Rules to determine the status of any obstruction (including a road or path) which may interfere with his/her play.
Rog is not so bold as to comment on what might be the 'best' approach but notes the responsibility falling to the 'committee' to be 'accurate' and clear in its determinations.
On the 17th green in a recent match play competition I chipped in for a par leaving my opponent with a delicate downhill putt for a half. Then, as she putted and her ball was trickling slowly down the slope towards the hole, a sudden gust of wind blew a gumnut onto her line of putt and she asked me to brush the gumnut off the line. Not wishing to appear insensitive or unsporting I complied with her request. But, it made no difference. The putt was always offline finishing 30 centimetres left of the hole and we both assumed that I had won the hole and the match 2 & 1. However, after hearing of this, the Club Captain expressed the view that the 17th hole was halved and that we had to return to the 18th tee and play the 18th and subsequent holes until a decision was reached. The Women’s Captain thought that we should both be disqualified from the competition. Can you shed further light on this situation?
ReplyDeleteHi Myff - a very interesting question.
DeleteLet's leave this open for a while and see whether there are any fellow-roggies who would like to express an opinion.
My view is that the result should stand as your opponent did not make any claim before both of you left the 17th green, so she accepted the result.
DeleteAs far as the situation at the 17th it deals with Rule 1-2. The interesting thing is that the opponent requests the player to breach a Rule and the player complies with the request. IMO this does not mean that you agreed to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3) but you propably were ignorant of the Rules. So no DQ. However, your opponent would IMO lose the hole as soon as she asked you to move the gumnut (what IS a gumnut??) as this would be a breach of R1-2. You actually complying is irrelevant.
Hi Anon
DeleteAs to your first paragraph. You make a very important point about the handling of 'disputes' in match play. As you say, a dispute which arises on the final hole of a match must be resolved before both players leave the green. In the case where the dispute arises during the match,'resolution', which can mean that one player advises the other that the matter will be taken to the match committee as soon as possible, must occur before either player plays from the next tee. But the players are required to continue with the match 'without delay'.
However, this case does not involve a dispute between the players and so Rule 2-5 does not apply.
While the question is not explicit as to the circumstances, for the sake of discussion Rog has assumed that the issue was drawn to the attention of the 'match committee' for the event (the Club and Women's cpatins) prior to announcement of the result.
As to your second paragraph, you may want to argue that this is a situation to which Rule 1-2 is relevant. You may claim that both players intended to influence the movement of the bal.
However, in Rog's view it is 23-1 which is the relevant Rule in this case. It states in part: When a ball is in motion a loose impediment that might influence the movement of the ball must not be removed.
Ignorance of the Rules is no defence and as both players were culpable and complicit in Rule 23-1 having been contravened, in Rog's view the approptiate outcome would be disqualification of both.
The only other possible decision would, in Rog's view, be that the player who requested that the loose impediment be removed did not breach Rule 23-1 but that the player who removed the loose impediment did. In which case the decision would be 'halved hole' in accordance with Rule 2-2.
A 'gumnut' is a nut from a Eucalypt or gum tree.
I am nervous about giving an opinion as I am new to the rules but I think that the players really agreed to break the rules by their actions and should both be disqualified.
ReplyDeletePeachie & Myff
DeleteBased upon the description of the incident, Rog thinks that Peachie has got it right. The players should both know the provisons of Rule 1-3, and have tacitly agreed (one by asking and the other by agreeing) to waive Rule 23-1.
If the player had moved the gumnut without having been asked to do so by her opponent, then the hole would be halved in accordance with Rule 2-2.
If the opponent had requested that the gumnut be moved and the player had refused to comply, then the ball would be played as it lies, without penalty.
Rog would appreciate opinions of confirmation or otherwise of these views.
Hi fog
ReplyDeleteGoogle Henry lonhurst on rules of golf quote 1937
Anonymous
DeleteUnderstood - but what is your point exactly?
Rule 1-3 ahem Rog buddy
ReplyDeleteAnon
DeleteThis is a bit obscure for Rog.
Could you please explain.
Hi Rog,
ReplyDelete1-3 is not applicable if the players did not know they are acting against Rules, see 1-3/5, so there can't be an agreement to waive a Rule. Nor do I think that the player asking the opponent to lift the LI can be punished. The opponent, although acting on request, should be penalized by loss of hole (23-1) although in this case the hole should be halved.
Anyway it was too late for a claim and the result of the match should stand.
Thanks Anonymous, I am sure this will help Myff with her query.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is difficult to reconcile players agreeing to breach the Rules (tacitly or otherwise) if they do not know what they are. It is also difficult to reconcile 1-3/5 with the 'ignorance principle’ as enunciated in Decisions like 3-4/1, 13-4/3 and 33-1/6. However, let’s accept the authority of Decision 1-3/5 in this instance.
I also agree that it is difficult to conceive how a player who does not, herself, breach a Rule but (successfully) incites another to do so can/should be handled within the context of the Rule Book. Can you help us with that?
I'm not so sure we can be adamant about the outcome of this match. As indicated above, in the absence of complete details on the situation it is difficult to know how and when the issue came to the notice of 'the committee' (if the Captains were, in fact, the 'committee'). In addition, the prospect of the ‘committee’ acting of its own volition, as opposed to responding to a ‘claim’, must, I think, also be considered.
Anyway, be that as it may, thanks for your assistance in the interests of better understanding.
Hi again,
ReplyDeleteAll the other Decisions You mentioned have to do with a player physically acting against the Rules, just like our player here when lifting the LI. The player who putted, did physically nothing against the Rules, just in ignorance told the other player to act.
In 1-3/5 the players also act against a Rule of which they did not know. In stroke play there would be consequencies afterwards, but in match play as no claim had been made and the players were ignorant of the breach, no consequencies afterwards.
In this case, if it was known that the player knew it was a breach of the Rules to pick up the LI and nevertheless told the other player to lift it, it would be a different outcome. See Dec 9/1.
Thanks again.
ReplyDeleteSo, as I see it we have:
• A player (Rules knowledge and motivation unknown) who incites an opponent to breach Rule 23-1.
• An opponent (Rules knowledge unknown) who breaches Rule 23-1.
• Rule 6-1 and sundry Decisions re: player responsibility to know the Rules.
• Decision 1-3/5.
• No apparent ‘dispute’ between the players.
• A (possible) ‘committee’ which becomes involved in circumstances which are unclear and possibly takes action at its own discretion.
• An understanding that it is not necessary to ‘physically’ breach a Rule in order be penalised, viz, ‘asking for advice’ (and perhaps inciting an opponent or fellow-competitor to provide it) is sufficient to draw a penalty.
I suggest that we leave Myff to work all this out.
Perhaps she could email Solomon.
I am surprised that it has not been mentioned that a player may overlook a breach by an opponent.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late post, just discovered the site.
Thanks arny, good to have your contribution.
ReplyDeleteAs you correctly state, Note 1 to Rule 2-5 provides that a player may overlook a breach of the Rules by his opponent but it does go on to say; 'provided there is no agreement between the sides (players) to waive a Rule'.
A couple of questions which arise from this situation are: Did the players tacitly agree to waive Rule 23-1 and, if so, does tacit agreement constitute a breach of Rule 1-3?
Hope to hear from you again.
Tacit= formal : expressed or understood without being directly stated.
ReplyDelete"Not wishing to appear insensitive or unsporting I complied with her request." By her comments I take it Myff did not know a breach had occurred.
Her opponent may well have been aware of the breach.
I think it would take two players to make an agreement.
arny
DeleteYou could also argue that by her comment Myff betrayed an understanding that there was something not quite right in what she was being asked to do but did not want to ‘appear insensitive or unsporting’, and so complied with the request.
If pushed for a decision, Rog would say that since the actions of both players seem to have been quite innocent and as Myff’s opponent was not impaired in her attempt at halving the hole and as there was no dispute between the players, then the result, as agreed between them, should stand.
Rog
ReplyDeleteI am interested in the rules in respect to gambling and amateur status.
Say that player A and B are playing golf and gambling on the outcome. If the gambling aspect actually takes on more importance than the game do you consider Player A and B should be classified as professionals?
Would say the doubling of the ante for the outcome of 1 particular shot when the doubling was dubious indicate that this action constitutes an act that requires the players to reliquinsh their amateur status regardless of the value of the ante?
Anon
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question which I have been asked many times.
You will find on pages 180-181 of the Rule Book a statement on Gambling Policy.
In short, this means that the type of 'wager' which goes on every day of every week everywhere in the world between players, for entertainment and enjoyment, is perfectly OK.
It is when things get more serious and/or involve persons other than the players themselves that, as described in the Policy, 'gambling' becomes problematic and thereby unacceptable.